Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 05.09.11 APPROVEDC� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, May 9, 2011 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Yie called the May 9, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gaul, Lindstrom, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioners Auran, Terrones and Cauchi Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker and Senior Planner Ruben Hurin III. ROTATION OF OFFICERS The annual rotation of officers of the Planning Commission occurred; the following are the officers until April, 2012: Chair: Commissioner Yie Vice -Chair: Commissioner Gaul (Commissioner Lindstrom declined the Vice -Chair position) Secretary: Commissioner Auran IV. MINUTES Commissioner Gaul moved, seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom to approve the minutes of the April 25, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission as submitted. Motion passed 4-0-0-3 (Commissioners Auran, Terrones and Cauchi absent). V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. VI. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VII. STUDY ITEMS 1. 235 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA NEW FULL -SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (PIZZA MY HEART) (MICHAEL GEORGE, APPLICANT; JEFFREY FINSAND, ARCHITECT; AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CENTERS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated May 9, 2011. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 Questions of staff: Asked that previously approved tenant spaces be noted on plans for multiple tenant space buildings on the Safeway property. Commission comments: ■ Encouraged the applicant to provide visible seating on the Primrose Road side of the tenant space; would be better to have more signs of life from that frontage. ■ Asked if there is a chance of moving the equipment room to another location? ■ Would like to see more glass for viewing into the space; would draw more people into the business. ■ The vinyl sign is a creative way of solving a problem, but will not attract people to the business. ■ What does the applicant consider to the front entrance? It appears that the parking lot entrance is to be the primary entry. Should consider treating Primrose Road as the front of the space. ■ Could the murals on the windows be backlit to draw more attention to the building? ■ Encouraged a strong connection between the interior of the space and the street; consider rearranging to provide a better connection between the pedestrians and the interior of the tenant space. ■ Would like a better explanation of the finishing of the utility structure on the south side. ■ How will refuse storage and removal occur? ■ How will deliveries be handled? ■ Is it possible to have outdoor seating with an encroachment permit, or within the inset area on the Primrose Road fagade that is interior to the property? This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division. This item concluded at 7:18 p.m. 2. 203 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (FIVE GUYS BURGERS AND FRIES) (JOSE GARZONA, APPLICANT; PSM ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CENTERS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Senior Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report, dated May 9, 2011. Questions of staff: How does the building code address restrooms for restaurants; there is a communal restroom proposed for this property? (Hurin — noted that currently the code requirement is met; restroom requirements are based upon occupancy, but at some point a tenant may be required to provide a restroom in the future.) Why is the former Wells -Fargo building being treated differently with respect to restrooms; if there was a communal restroom at that location, it could free -up space within the tenant spaces? Concerned that the capacity of the communal restroom may be exceeded given the number of tenant spaces. Asked why signage and building elevations are not shown? (Hurin — noted that signage is handled administratively and that there are no changes proposed for the exterior of the building.) Commission comments: 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 ■ Felt that the elevations could be helpful; there appear to be some discrepancies between what was approved and what was presented; appears that there are two doors on the Primrose Road fagade, one of which may not be used; needs to be clarified. ■ Unless the fagade is designed as approved originally, would consider a door that is not being used to be a change to the approved plans. ■ Noted that the plan scale is small and difficult to read; perhaps larger scale plans could be required. ■ Is somewhat worried that all of the uses proposed in this area are consistent with what was previously approved for the Safeway project; would like to see the originally approved elevations. ■ Requested clarification regarding the location of refuse containers and how refuse will be removed. ■ Asked for information regarding future proposed tenants in an effort to plan ahead, particularly of the future need for additional restrooms. This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division. This item concluded at 7:29 p.m. VIII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 3a. 2723 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK AND SANDY MOORE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; HEIDI RICHARDSON, RICHARDSON ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Vistica moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-0-3 (Commissioners Auran, Terrones and Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 4. 1152 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FRONT FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (LA BOULANGE, APPLICANT; LISA HARVEY, HARVEY ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; AND AVTAR JOHAL. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 9, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin, presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine (9) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 Chair Yie opened the public hearing. J. P. LaChance, 1529 Bernal Avenue, and Levi Hunt, 104 Sausalito Boulevard, Sausalito; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Asked for clarification regarding the color of the fagade? (LaChance/Hunt — blue, but will fade over time.) Will be a great addition to Burlingame Avenue; only concern is that the door swings for both restrooms may encroach upon ADA clearance requirements. Likes the motif; use of a wooden storefront is fine; the only thing that is a concern is ensuring that there is enough glass area to ensure that views into the space are possible. (LaChance/Hunt—will have operable windows and a bar situated against the windows. Have tried to install as many windows as possible.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gaul moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 21, 2011, sheets A.1, A.2 and A.5; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 6. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 7. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Ir CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 9. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-0-3 (Commissioners Auran, Terrones and Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:36 p.m. Chair Yie noted that Item 5 (611 Bayswater Avenue) would be deferred until later on the agenda, since due to Commissioner Vistica's need to recuse himself from the discussion (he resides within 500-feet of the subject site) results in the lack of a quorum for that item. 6. 1410 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT FOR CHANGES TO THE FRONT FAQADE OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING (UNION BANK, APPLICANT; INTERIOR ARCHITECTS, INC, ARCHITECT; AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CENTERS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 9, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty-three (33) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Questions of staff: Referenced Commissioner Terrones' e-mail correspondence expressing concerns regarding the proposed bank use; will not draw pedestrians to the area. (Meeker/Hurin — the use is permitted by right and is not the subject of the discussion.) Requested that Commissioner Terrones' e-mail be a part of the record. In place of the spandrel glass, could some other material; for example a display case with photographs of the history of banking in Burlingame, stained glass, etc. be installed? Something of interest could be created within this area. (Meeker— any design could be proposed for Commission consideration.) Heather Horn, on behalf of Union Bank; represented the applicant. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 Wanted to place the back of house uses as far back as possible, are surrounded by glass; the vault is a large, modular piece of equipment. The bank is very open to placing an historic film or artwork piece in place of the spandrel glass. (Commissioner— perhaps art displays could be placed in the area.) Noted that rotating displays are difficult given that the area is generally not accessible; could install something decorative like an historic mural, or other feature. The windows are not operable. Commission comments: ■ Consider installation of something that relates to the history of banking in the area as a point of interest. ■ Asked if it could be designed to provide accessibility? (Horn — would affect the useable floor area within the tenant space. There is not enough physical space to allow access for changing displays.) ■ Would like to see a design that promotes interest and draws people to the area; not just a spandrel glass panel. (Horn - Asked if there is a means of allowing the project to move forward with a building permit while the final design of this area is being resolved? Noted that the vault must be in a back -of -house location; the proposed location was the best location available. Meeker— indicated that the Commission could consider approving the request, with a requirement that the final design be presented to the Commission at a point in the future.) ■ Not certain if the vault should be in the location indicated; asked if the vault must be the size shown and the same configuration? (Horn — the vault comes in a defined shape; it must be in the back of the house. Given the layout of the space, there is no other location for the vault; felt that other options for the location of the vault could still result in the need for a partition to obscure views into the area.) ■ The building was designed in a manner to provide architectural interest; this presents a challenge with the bank use. ■ Thinks the layout of the bank will work properly; perhaps develop a shadow-box type detail that would encourage people to investigate the area, something with physical objects that could add interest. (Meeker— suggested some form of shadow-box that could be changed from the exterior of the building.) ■ Could make the area a storefront door that could be opened to provide access to allow items to be changed. (Horn — would need to review that concept with bank security personnel.) ■ May be beneficial to have the vault as deep into the space as possible. ■ Indicated that the applicant could submit for a building permit while the final design of the affected area is finalized and presented to the Commission; final approval must occur prior to issuance of a building permit. ■ The goal of the entire development is to enliven Howard Avenue and to bring people into the area; need to have something new to look at in the area periodically; not something static that people just walk by and ignore. Public comments: Fred Ponce, representing the property owner, Property Development Centers; spoke: Voiced support for Union Bank; and is there to assist the bank in creating a solution. If a shadow box with vignettes could be provided; would that be satisfactory? (Commissioner— yes, but you would still need access to clean and replace the items in the area at some point in the future.) Thinking of something more static that can be placed in a sealed area. W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Lindstrom moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: final design of window presented for approval as an FYI, prior to issuance of a building permit. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 23, 2009, sheets A0.1 through A5.3 and sheets L0.1 through L1.2; and revised sheets A1.1, A1.2 and L1.1 date stamped January 11, 2010; and sheets P-1 through P-6, date stamped April 11, 2011; 2. that the final design of the window panel area adjacent to the bank vault, facing Howard Avenue, shall be submitted and approved to the Planning Commission for review and approval as an FYI prior to issuance of a building permit for tenant improvements; 3. that the following refinements shall be made to the project design and shall be brought to the Planning Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of building permits for the project: a. Specify the paving material to be used for the pedestrian pathways; b. Specify how the no parking area in the truck turnaround area will be identified; C. Provide details on the overall site and pedestrian lighting; d. Provide details on the trash enclosure design; e. Provide details regarding the gateway feature, the materials used for the fountain and wall, include accent lighting, and provide details regarding the recognition of the Anza Expedition, consider using a boulder with a commemorative plaque; f. Look for opportunities to provide shopping cart storage within the parking lot; and g. Provide more detail regarding the treatment at the rear of the building, look for ways to break up the facade such as a mural, landscaping, vines cascading from above; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of buildings, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 10, 2009 and April 28, 2009, memos, the City Engineer's December 28, 2009, memo, the Fire Marshal's April 27, 2009, memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 26, 2007, memo shall be met; 7. that the applicant shall pay public facilities impact fees as outlined in the Public Facilities Impact Fee calculation dated December 23, 2009, and that the Parks and Recreation fee ($2011.03), and the Storm Drain fee (7,929.95), shall be waived; the total remaining fee due shall be $73,057.32; the required fee shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project; 8. that the grocery store may include take-out service and may be open 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week; 9. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 10. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 12. Exterior lighting for the project would be designed to meet the requirements of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 (pertaining to light spillage off site in commercial or residential areas), the California Energy Commission, and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for illumination levels. Compliance with these performance standards would minimize the dispersion of light in a manner that reduces the glow or aurora effect to acceptable and allowable levels. In addition, the project area already contains numerous sources of exterior lighting, and is not adjacent to uses that would be sensitive to light spillover. 13. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 14. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; The following three (3) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 15. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 16. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 17. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; Mitigation Measures from Initial Study: Hydrology and Water Quality 18. Preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan Incorporating Low Impact Development (LID) Practices. In order to ensure compliance with the existing Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and expected Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, the M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 Applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project that incorporates LID practices to the maximum extent practicable and required BMPs, as identified in the Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit tentative order. In addition to site design consideration, source control Best Management Practices (BMPs), and non-structural BMPs, this WQMP shall identify the required treatment volume (or rate) and the selected stormwater quality treatment BMPs, sizes, and locations for treating required flow volume (or rate), in accordance with both the existing and tentative Stormwater NPDES Permits. Runoff from the entire project site must be treated. The WQMP shall be prepared in compliance with the expected Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit conditions, which will also ensure compliance with the existing Stormwater NPDES Permit. It is not likely that the final, adopted Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit would include substantially different requirements than the current draft version. 19. Existing Storm Drain Protection. During construction, any damage to the existing concrete slab over the box culvert storm drain, or the storm drain culvert structure itself, will be immediately repaired by the Applicant. The new structure overlying this culvert shall be structurally bridged over the culvert to ensure adequate conveyance. Access to this culvert for maintenance and repairs shall be provided in the site design and site plan. Air Quality 20. Implement Feasible Control Measures to Minimize Emission of PM10 during Construction. The project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) standard mitigation requirements: ■ All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. ■ All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered. ■ All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. ■ All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. ■ All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. ■ Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. ■ All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. ■ Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the BAAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 20. Implement Energy Efficiency Measures above 2005 Title 24 Standards. The project sponsor shall implement energy efficiency measures, such that efficiency is at least 10 percent above the Title 24 E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 standards promulgated in the 2005 California Energy Code. Traffic 21. Install a Traffic Signal at the Howard Avenue/Primrose Road Intersection. The project sponsor shall pay a proportionate share, as determined by the Public Works Department, toward the future installation of a traffic signal at the Howard Avenue/Primrose Road intersection. Biological Resources 22. Pre -construction Nesting Bird Survey. Construction of the proposed project shall avoid the March 15 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent feasible. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 14 days prior to construction. The area surveyed shall include all clearing/construction areas, as well as areas within 250 ft. of the boundaries of these areas, or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered, clearing/construction shall be postponed within 250 ft. of the nest until a wildlife biologist has determined the nesting avian species and consulted on further measures with the CDFG. If the avian species present is protected under the MBTA or the California Fish and Game Code, further mitigation could entail postponement of clearing or construction activities within 250 ft. of the active nest until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. If the avian species is not protected under the MBTA or the California Fish and Game Code, no further action is required and construction activities may proceed. 23. Protection of Street Trees and Protected Trees. The project sponsor shall submit an application to the City of Burlingame's Parks and Recreation Department for a tree removal permit and meet the regulations of the Municipal Code, Chapter 11.06 (Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection) and Chapter 11.04 (Street Trees), including any tree replacement requirements. Included with the permit application shall be a landscaping plan that illustrates species, numbers, and sizes of replacement trees. The City's General Plan — Conservation Element, encourages the planting of "indigenous materials." While the planting of nonnative, ornamental species in landscaping the project site would not violate any policies, the project sponsor shall give reference to planting species native to the project site. Biological Resources 24. Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Construction Noise. The following practices shall be incorporated into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor. a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: ■ Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; ■ Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; ■ Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and ■ Minimize backing movements of equipment. b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible. C. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 exhaust from pneumatically -powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible. d. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. e. Select routes for movement of construction -related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the Burlingame Planning Division so that noise sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible. f. The project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" for construction activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem. Cultural Resources 25. Undiscovered Cultural Resources. If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resource as defined by CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past human activity ("midden"), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, worked bone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials) is discovered during construction related earth -moving activities, all ground -disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame shall be notified. The project applicant shall hire a qualified archaeologist to conduct a field investigation. The City of Burlingame shall consult with the archeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less -than -significant level through data recovery or other methods determined adequate by a qualified archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation. 26. Unique Paleontological/Geological Features. Should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at the project construction site during any phase of construction, the project manager shall cease all construction activities at the site of the discovery and immediately notify the City of Burlingame. The project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing any additional mitigation measures prescribed by the paleontologist and approved by the City. 27. Human Remains. If human remains are discovered at any project construction site during any phase of construction, all ground -disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California's Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved II CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground -disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. Improvement Measures: 28. Provide a "Keep Clear" pavement legend within the entrance drive aisle accessing Howard Avenue to keep outbound vehicles from blocking access to the adjacent drive aisle to the west. 29. The City should monitor the driveway access to the project site from Howard Avenue. If regular queuing to the El Camino Real/Howard Avenue intersection is identified, the City should restrict the Howard Avenue driveway access to right -turns in and out only. Left -turning vehicles would then be required to utilize the Primrose Road driveway. 30. The trash enclosure in front of the retail and office building should be relocated one space further inside the lot. 31. One on -street parking space on either side of Fox Plaza Lane should be removed to improve visibility for outbound Fox Plaza Lane vehicles. 32. Pavement markings indicating "No Parking" should be added as shown in Figure 26, to prevent drivers from blocking the aisle needed for delivery truck turn around. 33. The City should monitor potential conflicts between delivery trucks and vehicles on Howard Avenue. If needed, the City might consider limiting deliveries to off-peak hours to avoid conflict with eastbound traffic on Howard Avenue. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion: Include previously approved fagade designs. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-0-3 (Commissioners Auran, Terrones and Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:06 p.m. X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1416 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FORATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (LINDA AND LARRY DUGONI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 9, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Tim Raduenz, 3841 24th Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Sad that the existing home is being demolished. ■ Feels that the design is boxy on the left side; the massing is overwhelming. (Raduenz — took into account the massing of other homes in the neighborhood; the house to the right is basically the same style. The owners wanted a two-story home, so the second story was tucked under the roof plan; it is a true Craftsman -style home.) ■ Noted that the project is at the maximum FAR; the project could potentially exceed the threshold during construction. (Raduenz — are within the maximum limit; the owners wanted an attached garage to preserve yard area for the family. Lost a bit of the square footage allowed due to this.) ■ Difficult to consider the declining height envelope exception since it is a new home; it could be designed to comply; the requirement exists to ensure that homes do not become too bulky and massive. Encouraged elimination of the requested exception. ■ Working with the declining height envelope can help with the massing of the house. ■ Why are the left wall and the foundation being retained? (Raduenz — because of the existing mechanical room.) Encouraged removal of the existing area. (Hurin — is eligible for a floor area exemption if a new space is created for the mechanical room.) If an exterior access to this area is proposed; show it on the plans. ■ Likes the outdoor fireplace; will it be wood -burning? (Raduenz — it will be gas fired.) ■ With respect to the rain cistern; how will it be accessed and how will overflow be handled? Need to ensure that the system does not connect to the City water supply in any way. (Raduenz — will be accessed from the side.) ■ Consider reducing floor area to slightly below the maximum. (Raduenz — could remove 15-20 square feet. Hurin — noted that elimination of the declining height envelope request would reduce the square footage by roughly 100 square feet.) ■ Noted that the right side of the home design appears abrupt; consider changes that will better integrate the two sides of the house. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-0-3 (Commissioners Auran, Terrones and Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:19 p.m. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 8. 332 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (EXERCISE ROOM) (MARY DUNLAP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND ALEKSEY ZAKHAROV, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 9, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Mary Dunlap, Belmont and Aleksey Zakharov, 332 Dwight Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Noted that accessory dwelling units are not permitted currently; toilets are discouraged in accessory structures. A similar request was recently denied; the applicant was required to remove the toilet. (Zakharov — noted that the space will not be a residence, will be used as a recreational space.) ■ Expressed concern that it is very easy to convert such a space to a dwelling unit in the future. Need to provide a compelling reason for allowing a toilet in the accessory building. (Zakharov — noted that they are complying with what the code allows. Neighbors have the same type of structures in their rear yards.) The neighbors could have legalized their units under the City's second -unit amnesty program. ■ Noted that a similar request related to an accessory structure was considered previously; only a 2- inch waste line was allowed. ■ Appears that the second story is being added without matching the current building finishes; would like to see finishes that tie the existing home and the addition together; provide consistency. ■ Appears that nearly all of the windows are being replaced; noted 20 windows appear to be replaced. (Zakharov — noted that the windows were just replaced last year. Are trying to work within a limited budget, so are proposing vinyl windows to match the existing windows.) ■ The Commission encourages the replacement of windows with wood, or aluminum -clad wood windows. ■ Are at the maximum floor area ratio for the lot. (Dunlap — can address that matter.) ■ With respect to the mismatched finishes between the existing and proposed elements; there should be some means of tying the two elements together so that it flows better from a design standpoint. ■ Not certain how the roof system works; looks like the new portion of the building just "sprouted" from the existing roof. ■ Could consider providing a wood inset at the entry to tie the two elements together. ■ Vinyl is a toxic material; discouraged the use of this type of window. ■ Specify the type of siding being used. ■ Have an opportunity to make the home appear more exciting by opening up the porch a bit more. ■ Are already replacing many windows; encouraged using wood, or aluminum -clad wood windows; could retain the vinyl windows on the sides, but replace the front windows. ■ Specify the size and manufacturer for the skylights. ■ Noted that there will be a chimney on the front of the house for the water heater; will not look correct. Could change to high -efficiency units that could be vented out the side of the house. ■ There is an opportunity to make the entry a bit nicer; consider beefing up the posts. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 Consider changing the flat roof line at the porch to provide more light. Public comments: None. Additional applicant comments: Expressed frustration with disallowing the toilet in the accessory building. Would like to retain the vinyl windows if at all possible. (Commissioner — encouraged viewing samples at a window showroom in order to determine alternative window materials. Are building to the maximum FAR, could scale the design back somewhat and be able to afford changes requested. Vinyl windows are short-lived; reduces options for changing colors. They deteriorate much more quickly than other materials.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica moved to refer the project to a design reviewer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-0-3 (Commissioners Auran, Terrones and Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:59 p.m. 9. 1821 ASHTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A MAJOR RENOVATION AND FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHANG JIE AND JASON LU, APPLICANTS AND DESIGNERS; AND FENG XUE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 9, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Questions of staff: None. Jason Lu, 46778 Crawford Street, Fremont; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Clarified that the garage portion of the building is to be cut back. 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 ■ A width is not shown for the driveway; it doesn't appear that it will be wide enough to accommodate both garage doors; if it is made wider, it will affect the tree. The tree is completely in the way of what the design shows. Feels the existing driveway design works better. ■ Doesn't like to see the "squaring off' of the entire house; the design is massive and bulky appearing. ■ There are no windows shown on the rear elevation; though there is a door and a window shown on the floor plan. This will be a very plain elevation; something more should be done. ■ Doesn't feel that the roof -framing is workable as shown on the plans. ■ Need details on the exterior elevations; particularly on the front elevation. ■ The stone in the front ends abruptly; it doesn't wrap around the corner. The drawings need to accurately reflect the design. ■ The design looks like a "compound" not a house. ■ Would not have a problem with the front -yard setback variance if not all of the additions were at the same location; would like to see this changed. ■ A shower is shown next to the laundry. (Lu — noted that three generations live in the house.) ■ Requested clarification of the relationship between the front property line and the existing and proposed front setbacks. ■ Requested that the City arborist review the plan to determine any impacts upon the street tree; the driveway as designed cannot work with the location of the tree; need clarity on this issue before any design work proceeds, including consultation with a design reviewer. ■ Not a creative solution; creating more problems than are being solved in the design. ■ Is a large lot; there are other options available to meet the design intent. Public comments: William Ren, 1817 Ashton Avenue; spoke: Concerned about privacy impacts upon his property due to the addition of windows adjacent to his property. Will his neighbor allow him to have the same design. Concerned regarding the proposed chimney's impact upon his property. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gaul made a motion to refer to a design reviewer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: Investigate the ability to implement the driveway design while saving the street tree. Chair Yie called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-0-3 (Commissioners Auran, Terrones and Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:12 p.m. 10. 100 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (CHERYL PUTNAM, APPLICANT; HUGH HYNES, PROTO ARCHITECTURE, LLP, ARCHITECT; AND CALIFORNIA DRIVE 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 HOLDINGS. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 9, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. No one was present to represent the applicant. Commission comments: ■ What is the purpose of the project; to upgrade the building for energy efficiency and finishes? This is a great opportunity to increase energy efficiency. ■ Could provide sun -shading on the south side to enhance energy efficiency. ■ Are the doors along Bayswater to be painted? (Hurin — are intending to repaint the stucco and window frames. Noted that the Putnam dealerships are undergoing a number of upgrades.) ■ Likes the way the design looks; feels this is a nice change. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gaul made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-0-3 (Commissioners Auran, Terrones and Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:17 p.m. 5. 611 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE (DJ PROPERTIES LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JOANN GANN, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Given that Commissioner Vistica would need to recuse himself from the discussion of the project, and that that remaining Planning Commissioners would not constitute a quorum; consideration of the project was deferred until the May 23, 2011 Planning Commission agenda. EN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 XI. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 9, 2011 XII. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of May 2, 2011: Noted that an ordinance that would ban the use of Polystyrene food containers by vendors of prepared food was introduced by the City Council on May 2, 2011; a public hearing to consider adoption of the ordinance is scheduled for May 16, 2011. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log —April, 2011: Accepted. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, William Meeker Community Development Director 20